ormris marked 3 inline comments as done.
ormris added a comment.
Thanks for the comments so far.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/loop-widening-invalid-type.cpp:1
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -analyze
-analyzer-checker=core,unix.Malloc,debug.ExprInspection -analyzer-max-loop 4
-analyzer-config widen-loops=true -verify %s
+
----------------
MTC wrote:
> I think it's better to add more expressive tests. Like:
>
> ```
> struct A {
> int x;
> A(int x) : x(x) {}
> };
>
> void invalid_type_region_access() {
> const A &a = A(10);
> for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {}
> clang_analyzer_eval(a.x ==10); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
> }
> ```
>
> I think should use more related names instead of
> `loop-widening-invalid-type.cpp`, like `loop-widening-reference-type`.
Agreed. Fixed.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/loop-widening-invalid-type.cpp:8
+
+void invalid_type_region_access() { // expected-no-diagnostics
+ const A &x = B();
----------------
MTC wrote:
> I don't know what the purpose of the test is, is the comment `no-crash`
> better?
I've changed the test to (hopefully) look for a valid address for "x".
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47044
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
